PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD

SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?

A Question...............

• A woman is being brutally attacked in the street where she lives. She screams for help. 38 of her neighbours witness the attack, how many of them will:-

• (a) Go to her assistance?• (b) Call the police?• KITTY GENOVESE – NEW YORK 1964. None

of them went to help and only one person called the police after about 20 minutes. It was too late. She was attacked, raped, robbed and killed.

KEY TERMS

• Bystander Apathy.• Diffusion of responsibility.• Pluralistic ignorance.• Early research into helping behaviour was

done by laboratory experiments.• Irving Piliavin witnessed someone

collapsing on his way home on the New York subway and had an idea...............

Piliavin’s Plan!• Along with his wife

Jane and a colleague called Judith Rodin, Irving Piliavin wanted to stage an emergency on a New York Subway.

• It would be a FIELD EXPERIMENT involving participant observation.

The aim of the study was to investigate factors affecting helping behaviour.

The TYPE of victim

The RACE of the VICTIM

The SPEED of helping

The FREQUENCY of helping

The RACE of the HELPER

The impact of the presence of a MODEL

SAMPLE45% black and

55% white passengers

4450 men and women

The average number of passengers in the train carriage was 43. The average

number of passengers in the critical area where the emergency was staged was 8.5

Where?

• Two trains were selected. The trains travelled through Harlem to the Bronx in New York.

• The trains were chosen because they did not stop between 59th Street and 125th Street. This meant that for 7.5 minutes participants were a captive audience to the emergency.

Where?

• Train travelled through Harlem to the Bronx.

• No stop between 59th and 125th street – 7.5 minutes.

The Experimenters

• 4 teams of 4 students

• Each team had 2 males and 2 females

OBSERVERS MODEL

VICTIM

VICTIMS

• The four victims (one from each team) were males, aged between 26 and 35, three white and one black.

• All were identically dressed in jackets, trousers and no tie.

• DRUNK VICTIM• On 38 trials the victim smelled of

alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol in a brown bag.

• CANE VICTIM• On 65 trials, the victim appeared

sober and carried a black cane.

layout

• Figure 1:  Layout of adjacent and critical areas of subway car

•  

•

 

                                                              

THE STAGED EMERGENCY

• The victim stood next to the pole in the critical area.

• As the train passed the first station the victim staggers forward and collapses.

• Until receiving help he remains motionless on the floor looking at the ceiling.

• If the victim received no help by the time the train was stopping, the model would help him up.

MODELS

• The models (white males aged 24 to 29) were all dressed casually. There were 4 different model conditions used across both drunk and cane conditions.

• Critical area early – helped 70 seconds after the collapse.

• Critical area late – helped 150 seconds after the collapse.

• Adjacent area early – helped after 70 seconds• Adjacent area late – helped after 150 seconds

DATA COLLECTED

• 103 trials over 2 months. Trials ran between 11am and 3pm on weekdays during the period of April 15th to June 26th, 1968. 6-8 trials per day.

• 4 teams collected the data. The female observers recorded the data.

DATA RECORDED

• The female observers sat in the adjacent area and noted down:

• *The total number of passengers who helped the victim (including their race, sex and location)

• *The race, sex, and location of every passenger in the critical and adjacent areas.

• *A second observer noted down the time it took for help to be given

• *Observers also recorded comments made by the passengers.

RESULTS

• Diffusion of responsibility was not evident, in fact the quickest help came from the largest groups.

• Helping behaviour was very high.

• In the majority of trials, the victim was helped before the model acted.

RESULTS – CANE VICTIM

• Cane victim received spontaneous help on 62 out of 65 trials

RESULTS – DRUNK VICTIM

• Drunk victim received spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials.

WHO HELPED?

• 90% of helpers were male

• 64% of helpers were white.

RESULTS

• On 21 of the 103 trials, a total of 34 people left the critical area. This happened mostly when the victim appeared to be drunk.

RESULTS – COMMENTS MADE BY FEMALE PASSENGERS

“It’s for men to help him.”

“I wish I could help him – I’m not strong enough.”

“I never saw this kind of thing before – I don’t know where to look.”

“You feel so bad that you don’t know what to do”

EXPLANATION

• Piliavin et al developed the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model to explain their results

• Emotional AROUSAL is created when bystanders observe an emergency situation.

• This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy.

EXPLANATION

• Arousal may be increased by empathy with the victim, being close to the emergency and the length of time the emergency continues for.

• Arousal can be reduced by helping, seeking help, leaving the scene or deciding the victim doesn’t need help. Therefore we are motivated to help as a way of reducing our arousal.

EXPLANATION

• The Cost-reward analysis part of the model involves weighing up the costs of helping/not helping against the rewards of helping/not helping.

COSTSBENEFITS

EXPLANATION

• COSTS OF HELPING• Effort• Embarrassment• Physical harm• COSTS OF NOT

HELPING• Self-blame• Frowned upon by

others

• REWARDS OF HELPING

• Praise• Peace of mind• REWARDS OF NOT

HELPING• Get on with own

business• Save time and effort

EXPLANATIONCosts of helping = disgust, embarrassment or harm.

Costs of not helping is less because nobody would blame another for not helping a drunk.

DECISION = NOT TO HELP BECAUSE THE COSTS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.

EXPLANATIONCost of helping is LOW. No perceived risk of danger or no disgust or embarrassment

Cost of not helping is HIGH – would feel guilty, others may judge you.

DECISION = WILL HELP BECAUSE THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH ANY COSTS

EXPLANATION

Why did women help less?

Costs of helping are HIGHER for women – greater effort, risk of danger.

Costs of not helping are LESS for women – others may not see it as a woman’s role to offer help in these circumstances

DECISION = NOT TO HELP BECAUSE THE COSTS OF HELPING OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.

EVALUATION ISSUES

• Ecological Validity• Sample Size

• Ethics• Lack of Control

Strengths

Weaknesses